🛠️ Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

• The government has recalled Parliament on a Saturday to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, which aims to protect British Steel’s workforce and maintain steel production in Scunthorpe.

• The government was negotiating with British Steel’s Chinese owner, Jingye, to support the company, but Jingye refused a government offer that would have ensured the continued operation of the blast furnaces.

• The government accused Jingye of not acting in good faith and intending to close primary steelmaking at British Steel and supply its downstream mills from China.

• The Bill allows the government to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces to keep them operational and protect the 3,500-strong workforce. It does not transfer ownership to the state.

• Some MPs criticized the government for acting too late, suggesting the crisis could have been averted if addressed earlier.

• Concerns were raised about the extensive powers granted to the government, including the ability to seize assets by force and impose criminal penalties for non-compliance.

• The government promised to repeal the powers as soon as possible and update Parliament regularly on the situation.

• There were calls for a sunset clause to limit the duration of the government’s powers, but the government argued it would reduce their leverage in negotiations.

• MPs emphasized the strategic importance of maintaining domestic steel production for national security and economic resilience, citing its use in railways, defense, and infrastructure.

• The opposition criticized the government’s handling of the situation and attributed the crisis to high energy costs and the lack of a steel strategy.

• The government committed to developing a comprehensive steel strategy and ensuring the future of steel production across the UK, including additional investments in green technologies.

• The Bill was passed and will now proceed to a Committee of the whole House for further consideration.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered on the government’s handling of the steel industry crisis and the proposed legislation. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements and their intensity:

1. Legislation Process and Timing: There is a clear disagreement on the urgency and process of the legislation. The opposition, represented by Dame Harriett Baldwin, criticizes the recall of Parliament on a Saturday and the rushed nature of the legislation without proper scrutiny. They view it as an indication of the government’s incompetence and lack of preparedness, as seen in comments like “this is a bungled way to do parliamentary legislation” and “the Labour Government have landed themselves in a steel crisis entirely of their own making” (Dame Harriett Baldwin). The government, on the other hand, defends the urgency and necessity of the action, with the Secretary of State and Minister emphasizing the need to act quickly to protect the national interest and the steel industry.

2. Government’s Strategy and Negotiation: There is significant debate about the government’s strategy and negotiation with Jingye, the owner of British Steel. The opposition argues that the government has mishandled the negotiations, leading to a situation that requires emergency action. For instance, the shadow Secretary of State, Andrew Griffith, accuses the government of having “no plan” and failing to negotiate effectively, resulting in what he calls a “botched nationalisation plan”. The government counters by detailing their efforts to negotiate and the unique circumstances that necessitated the bill, with the Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, emphasizing the refusal of Jingye to cooperate reasonably.

3. Energy Prices and Industrial Strategy: There’s another strand of disagreement on broader issues like energy prices and industrial strategy. Opposition members like Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Sir Edward Leigh criticize the government’s energy policies and the high costs affecting the competitiveness of the steel industry. They argue that the government’s focus on net zero targets has been detrimental to the industry. The government, through the Secretary of State, acknowledges the issue of industrial energy prices but mentions ongoing efforts to address these challenges, such as the government’s commitment to a steel strategy and a green steel fund.

4. Nationalization and Ownership: The issue of nationalization and future ownership of British Steel is another source of disagreement. Some members, such as Richard Tice from the Reform party, call for immediate nationalization, suggesting it should have been done “this weekend”. The government, while not ruling out nationalization, maintains that the current legislation is about control rather than ownership, with the Secretary of State indicating that a transfer of ownership might be considered later but is not part of the immediate action plan.

5. Geographical Scope and Regional Equity: The debate extends to the geographical scope of the legislation, with the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru expressing concerns about regional equity. SNP members question why similar emergency measures were not taken for industries in Scotland, such as Grangemouth, and Plaid Cymru members argue that the legislation does not extend to Wales, pointing out the disparity in treatment of different regions. The government, represented by the Minister for Industry, Sarah Jones, responds by highlighting actions taken to support industries across the UK, including a commitment to Grangemouth.

Overall Rating: The session is given a rating of 2 out of 5 for disagreement because while there are significant points of contention, especially around the government’s strategy and handling of the crisis, there is also broad agreement on the need to protect the steel industry. The disagreements are centered more on how to achieve this protection rather than whether it is necessary. Both sides, including opposition members, generally support the legislation’s goal to maintain steel production and protect jobs, indicating a lower level of fundamental disagreement compared to what might be seen in more divisive parliamentary sessions.